Winner and Losers - @Philadelphia Eagles

[sharpe1027]

How many fullback runs have you seen from the Badgers?

Berstein did pretty well back in 2005 against Penn State.

[pbmax]

How many fullback runs have you seen from the Badgers?

Berstein did pretty well back in 2005 against Penn State.

It took 2 injuries to get him the ball, but yes, he was phenomenal.

[vince]

Calling the head coach the biggest loser in a tough win on the road because he didn't give the emergency 3rd string running back the ball enough seems to be missing the forest through the trees to me.

[Freak Out]

No offense to PBMAX because I always enjoy your posts....but I have to put NUTZ on the losers list for not coming around and starting this thread anymore.

[retailguy]

Calling the head coach the biggest loser in a tough win on the road because he didn't give the emergency 3rd string running back the ball enough seems to be missing the forest through the trees to me.

So glad we're accomodating of other opinions around here.

McCarthy's play calling is always a damn mystery to me, and I agree with the original point. Trotting Kuhn out on a series each drive until they compensated for him, wouldn't have been a bad idea, in fact, not much else they did in the 4th quarter went any better.

Jackson is a complete head case. On one drive, Jackson looks like Chris Johnson, on the next, it looks like he's worried his ballet slippers are going to get dirty. I don't think there is another Packer that frustrates me as much except for my buddy Ted.

[pack4to84]

Calling the head coach the biggest loser in a tough win on the road because he didn't give the emergency 3rd string running back the ball enough seems to be missing the forest through the trees to me.

MM calls the plays. I'm not saying MM as head coach, I'm saying MM as OC was the biggest loser. Eagles biggest weakness is undersized DL. With a bruser of a runner like Kuhn would have worn them out.

[pack4to84]

My Biggest Loser Is MM. Why did he not go back to Kuhn after he torched them for 2 big runs. Eagles had no answer for him. Their DL was under sized. MM should have pounded them with Kuhn like a Badgers Coach would have.

How many fullback runs have you seen from the Badgers?

Badgers RB are NFL fullbacks. Gray 260 lbs and running style is not a HB in the NFL. Badger coach would have pounded the Eagles with Kuhn and then went back to Jackson to change thing up.

[vince]

So glad we're accomodating of other opeinions around here.

By the laugh I assume you're being sarcastic. Not sure what you're getting at here. We perhaps have different opinions. Who's not accommodating?

[rbaloha1]

Winners

LBs -- Flying around making plays
Corners -- Good coverage
Burnett -- Rarely beat deep
D-Line -- Good penetration
Sitton -- Great movement and assignment sure
Jackson -- Showed good power and vision
Kuhn -- Showed explosion and versatility
Nelson -- Nice returns
Crosby -- Accurate with nice power

Losers

OTs -- Starting to show age
Rodgers -- Interceptions
Finely -- Comments about being a decoy

[retailguy]

So glad we're accomodating of other opeinions around here.

By the laugh I assume you're being sarcastic. Not sure what you're getting at here. We perhaps have different opinions. Who's not accommodating?

Vince, we've been down this road before. I read your comment, don't have a clue what you intended to mean, but what I read told me that pack4to84 can't see the forest through the trees because you disagreed with his point.

I found it extremely condensending, and my lol smiley meant I was laughing at the absurdity.

I'd have loved to see Kuhn get three more runs in the 4th quarter on each of the drives, and more, if they had no answer and his runs were successful. It would have burned the clock in any event, and if it was successful, might not have had our defense so gassed by the end of quarter. Did you not see Clay on the sidelines gasping for breath after his sack?

I recognize that we (the collective "we", including me) don't see the other perspective very well most of the time, but I thought it had validity and for you to tell the guy he was so blind he couldn't see the forest through the trees was ridiculous. This blind guy agreed with him...

[mraynrand]

With all due disrespect and mockery towards Joemailman, I agree with Vince. Not running Kuhn is a minor quibble, and 'missing the forest for the trees' is an effective metaphor. Retail, with all due hatred and cynicism towards your myopic perspective, I think you are 'making a mountain out of a molehill.'

note the attempt at humorous sarcasm with brutal dressdowns. I can just feel the loss of the flood of new posters turned off by the horror of by my misanthropic marginalization of fellow Packerrats Joe and Retail. More Rat on Rat crime! Oh, The Humanity!

[Patler]

So glad we're accomodating of other opeinions around here.

By the laugh I assume you're being sarcastic. Not sure what you're getting at here. We perhaps have different opinions. Who's not accommodating?

Vince, we've been down this road before. I read your comment, don't have a clue what you intended to mean, but what I read told me that pack4to84 can't see the forest through the trees because you disagreed with his point.

I found it extremely condensending, and my lol smiley meant I was laughing at the absurdity.

I'd have loved to see Kuhn get three more runs in the 4th quarter on each of the drives, and more, if they had no answer and his runs were successful. It would have burned the clock in any event, and if it was successful, might not have had our defense so gassed by the end of quarter. Did you not see Clay on the sidelines gasping for breath after his sack?

I recognize that we (the collective "we", including me) don't see the other perspective very well most of the time, but I thought it had validity and for you to tell the guy he was so blind he couldn't see the forest through the trees was ridiculous. This blind guy agreed with him...

So now we've gotten to the point that if we disagree we aren't allowed to express our disagreement?
We can respond only if we agree?
If we disagree, we can only remain silent?

Vince's disagreement seems about as milk-toast as they come, yet somehow you have to complain?

His "forest for the trees" comment is condescending and unacceptable, but you calling his "ridiculous" is not, and it is OK?

What IS ridiculous is this constant whining and bitching just because someone disagrees with someone else. I'm not particularly good at walking on eggshells, so.......

Yes, I'm calling your position ridiculous, as in stupid, unfounded, dumb, etc.

How's that??? (I will let you guess as to whether I am laughing with you or at you.)

[vince]

My opinion that there is a bigger picture to look at than is not condescending. Calling someone's opinion ridiculous or pathetic might be though.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=21003&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

What is really getting old is listening to you guys tell me for the last 4 years that this team was getting set up and ready, and now, just weeks before we enter the season, hearing the very same people scale back their predictions.

Fretting about Finley getting injured is ridiculous. Fretting about Hawk? Pathetic. He's started for the past 4 seasons, and is solid but not spectacular.

Legitimate concern at the number 3 corner perhaps, but if it was an issue, TED WOULD HAVE SOLVED IT. HE HAS HAD THE WHOLE OFFSEASON. He has therefore assessed that we have adequate personnel to man the position.

As in prior years, our team goes as far as the OL takes us. I believe you, THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED. You have assured me that I will be impressed, and I am watching with great expectation.

After that gem, you complain about being the victim and under attack and accuse others of being condescending? Please.

It's a legitimate opinion that McCarthy screwed up the game yesterday, and that Kuhn is a better runner than Jackson. I happen to disagree with both those opinions. It happens.

[Joemailman]

I think Vince's point had some validity. As head coach, MM has many responsibilities, and to suggest he was the biggest loser because of his 4th quarter playcalling seemed to me to be missing the bigger picture. Now, pack4to84 did say later that he was criticizing MM the OC, not MM the HC, but I don't see how you can call him the biggest loser based on one aspect of his job responsibilities. That would be a little like calling Matthews a loser because he dropped what should have been an interception.

[retailguy]

Well guys, I guess we watched a different game. I saw our defense on the field too much and very gassed by the end of the game. I also saw us give up 10 of our 17 point lead, and have no answer for Vick, other than Clay who was a beast all over the field.

I was grateful we escaped with a win, was further grateful that there wasn't a 5th quarter, because I'm not so sure that we would've escaped with a win. I thought Kuhn played fantastic with the options he was given, and thought more would've been a good thing.

None of this was a complaint against the team, just an observation that I thought the momentum was swinging. I'm very grateful that time ran out and that Matthews & Jones teamed up for a wonderful play to end it.

Obviously my "myopic viewpoint" isn't welcome, so I'll refrain from sharing. You guys can think whatever you'd like. I laughed, Vince asked, and I explained what I was thinking. If the shoes were on the other foot, I kind of think he'd have responded in much the same way.